D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Maxperson]

The party instead chose to draw the monster back to a waterlogged spike trap. I could have stood my ground and said the monster doesn't follow them, or that its internal heat prevented it from solidifying, or whatever, but I could tell from my players' voices that they were jazzed about such a simple solution to a dangerous problem. I could have done the thing I actually really wanted to do, and have it fight them somehow anyway--maybe burrowing through the ground (a thing the spiders were capable of doing). But I understood that that wasn't what my players wanted, and accepted their solution. I emphatically was not "granting permission" for their solution to work--I was 100% admitting that I had failed to foresee a perfectly reasonable explanation, and that my players had outsmarted me. This remains a highlight of the game for reasons completely other than the ones I intended.

You could have stood your ground, yes. That was in your power to do. Instead, you CHOSE to go with what the players were trying and ALLOWED it to have a chance of success or maybe it was an auto success. I can't tell. Iin any case it was your authority that allowed it to happen.

For another example: There's an NPC in my game who is secretly a gold dragon, summoned from his faraway homeland of Yuxia. Being a gold dragon, Shen is of course very powerful, but he is trying to keep his true identity a secret, as he is hunting a black dragon (also from Yuxia, but who arrived centuries ago). If things escalated into open dragon-on-dragon combat, innocent people would almost surely die. If that doesn't happen it almost surely means the black dragon ran away, meaning the chase would start all over again and he'd really rather not be hunting this dragon for another two centuries.

I had feared my players would dislike this NPC (or worse, see him as a DMPC, since I love dragons so much), but they actually really like him. Then they threw me a curveball: they asked Shen if he would help them on their adventuring, what with being a powerful champion of all that is good and righteous and such. All my DM instincts told me "no, don't do it, you're taking their adventure away from them." But I ignored those instincts and looked for a way to satisfy their request without compromising their ownership of their successes and failures. I did not "grant permission" for them to have what they wanted. I relented and accepted the players' united interest in having Shen's help. They have thus far not chosen to make use of the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card he gave them, keeping it for a rainy day. They got what they wanted, and I had to change my plans--and I'm perfectly happy with that, because it made my players happy.

This again is you exerting your authority to grant what the players wanted to accomplish.

So yeah. I have absolutely had situations where my players were not--tacitly or otherwise--asking for permission. They were declaring their intent, and waiting for me to respond to it. I could have been a petulant child and told them what they wanted was bad, but I chose not to, and instead listened to them. My authority was not absolute--and is not. I always approach play as a negotiation, not as princeps writing laws with the occasional (but unnecessary) advice of a defunct Senate.

No. Anything the players try has a tacit, "I want to try this if it's okay with you." attached to it, as you the DM have to consider and make a ruling like you did in the above examples, and the ruling can be no. Your above examples are not of the players taking authority away from you, but they are examples of good DMing. You considered and instead of ruling no, you ruled yes. It was still your authority that allowed those things to happen.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think it is because there is a sense that it doesn't matter whether or not the DM is being unreasonable.

From your position, it doesn't matter what the DM has done or said, they can never be the naughty word. They are never the one who has to compromise their position. The player is the only one who can be an naughty word. I mean, just look at your example you gave me.

I'd… actually cop to that. Yes; when the DM is defining the parameters of the campaign, it's pretty hard to imagine any character creation limitations set by the DM which are inherently unreasonable. Assuming, that is, that the DM has defined those limitations in vacuo, without player input (which IME is typically how it's done). For the DM to be "the naughty word," they would have to solicit player input and then work to subvert it. If a DM were to ask a group of potential players about what characters they'd like to play and then (through either malice or negligence) create a campaign world that excludes those particular character types, that would be a dick move, without question. But it's such an unrealistic scenario—I can't see any DM acting in good faith ever doing such a thing.

The referee shut down their concept. And there is to be no questioning of that. The why is meaningless to your position. They have spoken, and that is all that matters.

Now all weight of being reasonable falls on the player to alter their position until it is acceptable to the referee, or they leave the game.

Yes. And not just because the DM has more "authority" (however it's been vested or defined) over the setting and the rules than the player; it's because the DM has more information. The DM by virtue of having created the campaign knows more about the campaign than a player at character creation possibly can. It might sound paternalistic to say "the DM knows best," but in this case it's literally true.

At what point did you think the player was the problem? What would it take for you to think the DM is the problem?

There are lots of ways for a DM to be the problem once the game is in full swing. That's kind of orthogonal to the issue of setting limits on character creation.

That is why some of us have a hard time agreeing with you, because some of us have seen this attitude in practice. "I'm not the problem, you are the problem, you are ruining my game and refusing to compromise. I don't need to compromise, I'm the Dungeon Master. If you don't like it, there's the door."

And sometimes, it is the player. I'm not going to say the player is never the problem. But it is like pulling teeth from a rabid lion to get some people to admit that maybe, just maybe, sometimes the DM is the problem.

During play, the DM can be the source of all kinds of problems. That's not in dispute. But what could possibly constitute problem behavior when defining a setting and its parameters? Subverting the players' intentions preemptively; I've dismissed that as implausible. Creating a naughty word-up setting (e.g. Gor or some such dreck) when the players aren't on board with it would count, I suppose, but again that's not good faith DMing, that's just a bait-and-switch.

Excluding dwarves (or whatever) from a given setting and being non-negotiably strict about it is hardly on the same plane. In fact, I'm having trouble envisioning any scenario (short of the DM deliberately targeting a player they know who e.g. always plays dwarves) where this could constitute "problem DMing." I say again: there is no meaningful difference between a hypothetical D&D campaign that doesn't allow dwarves and a Cthulhu or Traveller or Vampire campaign that doesn't allow dwarves. And yet you never hear anyone argue, "the ST should be willing to negotiate—maybe make a little room in the setting—insert the Dvergr as a clan neatly between the Tzimisce and the Ventrue!"

 

[Charlaquin]

Or, it could just be fear of the unknown. It doesn't have to be racism.

I mean, fear of the unknown is at the root of most bigotry. That aside though, trying to justify it this way ignores the fact that cat people wouldn’t be an unknown thing in a world with cat people. Hostility towards them as a default reaction would by definition be the result of racial (or species-based) prejudice. Prejudice caused by fear perhaps, but still very much prejudice.

 

[Hussar]

Who says halflings are just as strong as a full grown human? It's a game that is so abstracted that acrobats don't benefit much from strength, and being healthier or less healthy has no impact on how long you can fight and run and climb and throw heavy rocks at things.

And dragonborn are dense because they average 250 while being human shaped, and are noticeably stronger than humans. So, on average, they're at least as heavy as quite large humans, but they don't need more sleep or food than an average human. Point being, no, they aren't more believable than halflings.

Also, who is talking about pedigree? Please stop bringing crap I'm not talking about into a discussion with me. I do not give the least little sliver of a damn about pedigree.

It's fantasy art. Harping on the proportions of the creatures is entirely nonsensical on every level. It doesn't matter.

And....no. Honey badgers literally drive off most of those attempted predators much more often than they get eaten by them.

More importantly, who cares?

Again, you're trying to have a different argument than the one I'm involved in. Please just stop. I do not care. I care about the line of disussion that I involved myself directly in, not at all in the argument that you're trying to have with me.

Eh, not so much. Most people who go adventuring die adventuring in real life, and yet happy optimists full of curiosity have always done so anyway. Nothing wierd about halflings there.

Umm, there are LOTS of 250 pound humans that don't particularly need more sleep or food than anyone else. Have you been to the mall lately?

And, please stop trying to control the conversation. There is more than just you in this conversation and I'm addressing everyone, even if I'm replying to you. Slap me on ignore if you feel that I'm somehow misrepresenting your arguments. But, this is a broader conversation than just you, so, I will continue to link the conversation to the broader conversation if you don't mind. You inserted yourself into a broader conversation, don't complain that the broader conversation is continuing despite your protestations.

 

[Hussar]

I mean, fear of the unknown is at the root of most bigotry. That aside though, trying to justify it this way ignores the fact that cat people wouldn’t be an unknown thing in a world with cat people. Hostility towards them as a default reaction would by definition be the result of racial (or species-based) prejudice. Prejudice caused by fear perhaps, but still very much prejudice.

I guess this is one of my basic problems. Why are elves and dwarves "known" but, Tabaxi or Dragonborn aren't?

I mean, it's pretty easy for the DM to just say, "Ok, yup, race X is just as known as these other races".

 

[Dr Magister]

Again, this is why I have two separate on-going campaigns that we switch between intermittently. I, as DM, prefer my gritty, lower-fantasy, strictly limited playable races, fantasy-racism-is-a-thing, world. It's the one I've put the most effort into creating. And as far as I know, my players are enjoying that game for what it is.

I also know that they really like the colourful, heroic, kitchen sink setting where they get to try out all the exotic races, and I don't have to (or want to) veto any given character idea and they can play anything they like (within reason).

 

[Minigiant]

I guess this is one of my basic problems. Why are elves and dwarves "known" but, Tabaxi or Dragonborn aren't?

I mean, it's pretty easy for the DM to just say, "Ok, yup, race X is just as known as these other races".

Especially since back in the day,people would be more afraid of elves or anything else on the fey side.

D&D elves and dwarves are many many times toned down from how people really saw them. Mythological elves and dwarves looked human but they sure didn't act human and everyone knew that. Bring on the catman who kill all the rats for free.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To contribute to the pointless 'how common are the halfling adventurers' tangent, I'd like to point out that D&D halflings are not just hobbits, they have some kender influence too. They're pretty fearless and even have a racial feature to represent it. This certainly would increase the likelihood of them becoming an adventurers, albeit not necessarily very long lived ones...

 

[FrozenNorth]

To contribute to the pointless 'how common are the halfling adventurers' tangent, I'd like to point out that D&D halflings are not just hobbits, they have some kender influence too. They're pretty fearless and even have a racial feature to represent it. This certainly would increase the likelihood of them becoming an adventurers, albeit not necessarily very long lived ones...

I think that it is more likely that kender have some halfling influence, not vice-versa, given that there were halflings in my rules Cyclopedia.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think that it is more likely that kender have some halfling influence, not vice-versa, given that there were halflings in my rules Cyclopedia.

It's a feedback loop.